We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Multicenter Comparison of Nonsupine Versus Supine Positioning During Intubation in the Emergency Department: A National Emergency Airway Registry (NEAR) Study.
Academic Emergency Medicine 2019 October
OBJECTIVE: Head-up positioning for preoxygenation and ramping for morbidly obese patients are well-accepted techniques, but the effect of head-up positioning with full torso elevation for all intubations is controversial. We compared first-pass success, adverse events, and glottic view between supine (SP) and nonsupine (NSP) positioning for emergency department (ED) patients undergoing orotracheal intubation.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data for ED intubations over a 2-year period from 25 participating centers in the National Emergency Airway Registry (NEAR). We compared characteristics and outcomes for adult patients intubated orotracheally in SP and NSP positions with either a direct or video laryngoscope. We report odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for categorical variables and interquartile ranges with 95% CI for continuous variables. Our primary outcome was first-attempt intubation success and secondary outcomes were glottic views and peri-intubation adverse events.
RESULTS: Of 11,480 total intubations, 5.8% were performed in NSP. The NSP group included significantly more obese patients (OR = 2.2 [95% CI = 1.9-2.6]) and patients with a suspected difficult airway (OR = 1.8 [95% CI = 1.6-2.2]). First-pass success (adjusted OR = 1.1 [95% CI = 0.9-1.4]) and overall rate of grade I glottic views (OR = 1.1 [95% CI = 0.9-1.2]) were similar between groups while NSP had a significantly higher rate of grade I views when direct laryngoscopy was employed (OR = 1.27 [95% CI = 1.04-1.54]). NSP was associated with higher odds of any adverse event (OR = 1.4 [95% CI = 1.1-1.7]).
CONCLUSIONS: ED providers utilized SP in most ED intubations but were more likely to use NSP for patients who were obese or in whom they predicted a difficult airway. We found no differences in first-pass success between groups but total adverse events were more likely in NSP. A randomized trial comparing patient positioning during intubation in the ED is warranted.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data for ED intubations over a 2-year period from 25 participating centers in the National Emergency Airway Registry (NEAR). We compared characteristics and outcomes for adult patients intubated orotracheally in SP and NSP positions with either a direct or video laryngoscope. We report odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for categorical variables and interquartile ranges with 95% CI for continuous variables. Our primary outcome was first-attempt intubation success and secondary outcomes were glottic views and peri-intubation adverse events.
RESULTS: Of 11,480 total intubations, 5.8% were performed in NSP. The NSP group included significantly more obese patients (OR = 2.2 [95% CI = 1.9-2.6]) and patients with a suspected difficult airway (OR = 1.8 [95% CI = 1.6-2.2]). First-pass success (adjusted OR = 1.1 [95% CI = 0.9-1.4]) and overall rate of grade I glottic views (OR = 1.1 [95% CI = 0.9-1.2]) were similar between groups while NSP had a significantly higher rate of grade I views when direct laryngoscopy was employed (OR = 1.27 [95% CI = 1.04-1.54]). NSP was associated with higher odds of any adverse event (OR = 1.4 [95% CI = 1.1-1.7]).
CONCLUSIONS: ED providers utilized SP in most ED intubations but were more likely to use NSP for patients who were obese or in whom they predicted a difficult airway. We found no differences in first-pass success between groups but total adverse events were more likely in NSP. A randomized trial comparing patient positioning during intubation in the ED is warranted.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app